ambari_services_getservicecheckstatus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'get', implying a non-destructive read operation, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or any latency considerations. For a simple status check, it is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is tightly written and front-loaded with key information. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., what fields or structure the status response includes). The tool has 1 required and 2 optional parameters, which are documented in the schema. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but could be more complete by hinting at the nature of the returned data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (clusterName, serviceName, requestId). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'status of recent service check operations', and the target 'for a service'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ambari_services_runservicecheck' (which initiates) and 'ambari_services_isservicechecksupported' (which checks support).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies a read-only query for checking the status of service checks, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to consider alternatives. Among siblings, other get tools exist (e.g., getservice, getservicestate) but no contrast is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.